No, of course because hypothesis asks what is possible vs impossible vs unknown. In order to test a proposition, it must be worked out in full; and in something as "hairy" as a legal case or similar reasoning over many topics, one must figure out the fullest set of what might account for all evidence. A "pink sweater" might mean different things in different hypotheses, for instance: a co-incidental non-evidetiary item, a murder weapon (strangulation or some such), etc.




No, I am explaining why we do things, in reasoning. So that we are on the same page. In order to understand a proposition, unfortunately even a seeming outlandish one, we cannot rely on piecemiel fact-testing; it may be that it is the relationship between one fact and another which is the salient evidence, not an object or individual event.

So, we test the objects/ideas as best we can, reason as fully as we can in all directions related to the proposition, and then return to the object/idea.

If you want sound bytes you cannot reason. If you were in a court, hearing PX arguments, you would have to sift through all the pieces AND all the potential links, without prejudice to the claim -- which includes not reasoning with only what things would be if you had your way.

What if three items/claims were found together in the same years, and roughly conforming to PX predicted period (last 10 years):


One physical item: could be a or b hypothesis
Another physical item: could be b or c hypothesis
And a third (a claim only): q

Let's say, a and c are versions of co-incidence or non-planet X in some way. And b is planet x possibly doing it physically. And q is ACTUALLY untestable or impossible (and known to fit with NO physical effect we know of, not magnetism, not gravity, nada.)

Well, for item one, isolated, you would like to make it a.
And for item two, isolated, you would chose c.
And for q, you'd jump up and down saying, "Told ya so! A flaw!"

But in fact in combination (in this symbolic example):

Items one, two, and three would logically require b and q.

What does that mean?

It means that in fact in combination, item q could be tossed as completely physically impossible and unknown ...

But items one and two HAVE TO BE "B".
In this logical example, ab and bc leave b.

Follow me, dear sound-byte guy?

I am not saying that Nancy is telling the truth. What I am saying is when BUILDING A CASE, which is NECESSARY FOR UNDERSTANDING, you can't toss what seem to be small things or co-incidental. You actually have to COUNT them into your case.

Then the case rises or falls on the totality.

So, the Wobble example may be small, but it WOULD fit PX if there were one, figuring in electromagnetism. (And to understand the latter's role in planetary dynamics takes a digression and requires one do poo-pooh the institutional errors of many astrophysicists who don't think of it when they think of measuring "Gravity" effects and Sun charges over aeons.)

So the Wobble example goes into the mix. Then we also add the magnetic poles -- the North could be "just moving rapidly" etc., or for some as-yet-unpostulated reason, or, if PX were near, it sounds likely that it might push the magnetic charge in ways not conforming to the Sun's usual. So it goes into the mix.

And on we go.

And if the whole adds up into an image of possibility for PX, then so be it. (Awful reality that would be.) It still doesn't mean it is SO, but it means we've built a case.

Then we work on how it could all be co-incidence: your specialty. Well, here we have scientists saying it's shocking what's happening in the Poles, or with the "Holes" of the magnetosphere, and so on.

Whichever total theory/case is linked best and strongest in details as well, wins. (However, one could have a very strong case that turns out to be in fact wrong. Determining that, though, would be due to key pillars of the case falling, not to just any item.)



As you know, I never freaked. And I have admitted the points you raised about the Pole Star were likely -- though not absolutely proving, until we have scale. But yes, I am guessing now we are not wobbling as Nancy says. However, I do not think the other claims are so likely not true, such as the fact that the Chandler Wobble going backward was not -- both intuitively and in known record -- normal. I found an article on that, at one point. It was mainstream media -- and was talking of something else as well. I don't have the link handy.




Well, it adds up to a case for PX. A case doesn't mean it IS so, but it puts together the pieces in their possible relationship and yes, there are suggestions therefrom, that PX might be here ... but not all the claims about it from Nancy/putative Zetas have to be true for there to be a case to be made for PX.

And when sifted out, these facts and their relationships (why the magnetosphere "holes" of repulsion just after the same time as the Chandler Wobble went backward ... etc.) does make me wonder if yes, the best explanation -- other than the ubiquitous "co-incidence of factors" -- might be a third main magneto-gravitic body (a planet X) being the pull-push factor in the solar system relationship of the Sun and Earth.

This alone would be enough to at least posit PX (if of course nothing stood in the way to make it logically IMPOSSIBLE). Oh, and logcally impossible doesn't mean "unwished thinking", may I remind you.

Good night (for real this time). I napped this aft so I guess I was able to stay up later than usual.

Bye for now! :)

zzzzz
Me